and many more benefits!

Find us on Facebook

GMAT Club Timer Informer

Hi GMATClubber!

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

Innovations in production technology and decreases in the [#permalink]

Show Tags

01 Dec 2007, 12:27

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0%(00:00) correct 0%(00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Innovations in production technology and decreases in the cost of equipment have made recycling paper into new paper products much more cost-efficient over the last twenty years. Despite these advances, though, the "point of price viability" (the price that new paper made from trees must reach to make recycled paper comparable in price) is unchanged at $2.12 per ream of paper.

Which of the following, if true, most explains why the increased cost-efficiency of recycled paper has not lowered the point of price viability?

a) The cost of unprocessed trees to make new paper has fallen dramatically.

b) The decreases in the cost of recycling equipment have occurred despite increases in the cost of raw materials required to manufacture such equipment.

c) Innovations in production technology have made it much more cost-efficient to produce new paper from trees.

d) Most paper is made from the scraps and sawdust left after processing new trees for lumber, rather than directly from the trees themselves.

e) When the price of planting new saplings to replace cut trees becomes more expensive, forests reserves not previously worth cutting become cost-effective to cut

Show Tags

01 Dec 2007, 12:33

tarek99 wrote:

Innovations in production technology and decreases in the cost of equipment have made recycling paper into new paper products much more cost-efficient over the last twenty years. Despite these advances, though, the "point of price viability" (the price that new paper made from trees must reach to make recycled paper comparable in price) is unchanged at $2.12 per ream of paper.

Which of the following, if true, most explains why the increased cost-efficiency of recycled paper has not lowered the point of price viability?

a) The cost of unprocessed trees to make new paper has fallen dramatically.

b) The decreases in the cost of recycling equipment have occurred despite increases in the cost of raw materials required to manufacture such equipment.

c) Innovations in production technology have made it much more cost-efficient to produce new paper from trees.

d) Most paper is made from the scraps and sawdust left after processing new trees for lumber, rather than directly from the trees themselves.

e) When the price of planting new saplings to replace cut trees becomes more expensive, forests reserves not previously worth cutting become cost-effective to cut

Show Tags

Show Tags

03 Dec 2007, 06:32

tarek99 wrote:

Innovations in production technology and decreases in the cost of equipment have made recycling paper into new paper products much more cost-efficient over the last twenty years. Despite these advances, though, the "point of price viability" (the price that new paper made from trees must reach to make recycled paper comparable in price) is unchanged at $2.12 per ream of paper.

Which of the following, if true, most explains why the increased cost-efficiency of recycled paper has not lowered the point of price viability?

a) The cost of unprocessed trees to make new paper has fallen dramatically.

b) The decreases in the cost of recycling equipment have occurred despite increases in the cost of raw materials required to manufacture such equipment.

c) Innovations in production technology have made it much more cost-efficient to produce new paper from trees.

d) Most paper is made from the scraps and sawdust left after processing new trees for lumber, rather than directly from the trees themselves.

e) When the price of planting new saplings to replace cut trees becomes more expensive, forests reserves not previously worth cutting become cost-effective to cut

Please explain your answer

Between 'A' & 'C' ..

Will go for 'C'

Technological advances in prodution are the same for both new paper and recycled paper......

Show Tags

03 Dec 2007, 07:30

tarek99 wrote:

Innovations in production technology and decreases in the cost of equipment have made recycling paper into new paper products much more cost-efficient over the last twenty years. Despite these advances, though, the "point of price viability" (the price that new paper made from trees must reach to make recycled paper comparable in price) is unchanged at $2.12 per ream of paper.

Which of the following, if true, most explains why the increased cost-efficiency of recycled paper has not lowered the point of price viability?

a) The cost of unprocessed trees to make new paper has fallen dramatically.

b) The decreases in the cost of recycling equipment have occurred despite increases in the cost of raw materials required to manufacture such equipment.

c) Innovations in production technology have made it much more cost-efficient to produce new paper from trees.

d) Most paper is made from the scraps and sawdust left after processing new trees for lumber, rather than directly from the trees themselves.

e) When the price of planting new saplings to replace cut trees becomes more expensive, forests reserves not previously worth cutting become cost-effective to cut

Please explain your answer

though A and C are very close, I will go with A

reason- Innovation in production technology is common for both reclyled paper and new paper from trees. The only difference could be that the cost of unprocessed tree, which is the raw material for producing paper, has dramatically reduced.

Show Tags

Show Tags

03 Dec 2007, 16:46

Amardeep Sharma wrote:

tarek99 wrote:

Innovations in production technology and decreases in the cost of equipment have made recycling paper into new paper products much more cost-efficient over the last twenty years. Despite these advances, though, the "point of price viability" (the price that new paper made from trees must reach to make recycled paper comparable in price) is unchanged at $2.12 per ream of paper.

Which of the following, if true, most explains why the increased cost-efficiency of recycled paper has not lowered the point of price viability?

a) The cost of unprocessed trees to make new paper has fallen dramatically.

b) The decreases in the cost of recycling equipment have occurred despite increases in the cost of raw materials required to manufacture such equipment.

c) Innovations in production technology have made it much more cost-efficient to produce new paper from trees.

d) Most paper is made from the scraps and sawdust left after processing new trees for lumber, rather than directly from the trees themselves.

e) When the price of planting new saplings to replace cut trees becomes more expensive, forests reserves not previously worth cutting become cost-effective to cut

Please explain your answer

though A and C are very close, I will go with A

reason- Innovation in production technology is common for both reclyled paper and new paper from trees. The only difference could be that the cost of unprocessed tree, which is the raw material for producing paper, has dramatically reduced.

Amar

Amar,

At my first go, I was going for 'A', for similar reason as yours.. Then I realised that the fact about 'Innovation in production technology for new paper' is not in the original premise but in one of the possible explanations (answer choice).

Show Tags

04 Dec 2007, 03:49

I think the reason why C is superior to A is that A addresses only one of the 2 elements at issue: the cost of unprocessed trees. even if the cost of the tree is cheaper, the technology used could still be expensive and, therefore, not result to efficiency. don't forget, in "resolve the paradox" question, you have to address how the 2 points at issue can co-exist. option A talks about only one of the 2 elements, which is the raw material, and doesn't even talk about technology. the correct anwer choice must mention how the 2 can exist together to produce the result mentioned in the argument: produce efficiency.

In option C, it talks about technology and our desired result of efficiency. now whether or not the unprocessed trees were expensive still reaches to our desired result of efficiency. that's how i see it at least and that's why it makes sense to me. hope this helps!

Show Tags

04 Dec 2007, 04:52

Beyond700 wrote:

Amardeep Sharma wrote:

tarek99 wrote:

Innovations in production technology and decreases in the cost of equipment have made recycling paper into new paper products much more cost-efficient over the last twenty years. Despite these advances, though, the "point of price viability" (the price that new paper made from trees must reach to make recycled paper comparable in price) is unchanged at $2.12 per ream of paper.

Which of the following, if true, most explains why the increased cost-efficiency of recycled paper has not lowered the point of price viability?

a) The cost of unprocessed trees to make new paper has fallen dramatically.

b) The decreases in the cost of recycling equipment have occurred despite increases in the cost of raw materials required to manufacture such equipment.

c) Innovations in production technology have made it much more cost-efficient to produce new paper from trees.

d) Most paper is made from the scraps and sawdust left after processing new trees for lumber, rather than directly from the trees themselves.

e) When the price of planting new saplings to replace cut trees becomes more expensive, forests reserves not previously worth cutting become cost-effective to cut

Please explain your answer

though A and C are very close, I will go with A

reason- Innovation in production technology is common for both reclyled paper and new paper from trees. The only difference could be that the cost of unprocessed tree, which is the raw material for producing paper, has dramatically reduced.

Amar

Amar,

At my first go, I was going for 'A', for similar reason as yours.. Then I realised that the fact about 'Innovation in production technology for new paper' is not in the original premise but in one of the possible explanations (answer choice).

oh ya, you are absolutely correct, you hit the nail in right place...thnx buddy

Show Tags

04 Dec 2007, 05:09

Amardeep Sharma wrote:

Beyond700 wrote:

Amardeep Sharma wrote:

tarek99 wrote:

Innovations in production technology and decreases in the cost of equipment have made recycling paper into new paper products much more cost-efficient over the last twenty years. Despite these advances, though, the "point of price viability" (the price that new paper made from trees must reach to make recycled paper comparable in price) is unchanged at $2.12 per ream of paper.

Which of the following, if true, most explains why the increased cost-efficiency of recycled paper has not lowered the point of price viability?

a) The cost of unprocessed trees to make new paper has fallen dramatically.

b) The decreases in the cost of recycling equipment have occurred despite increases in the cost of raw materials required to manufacture such equipment.

c) Innovations in production technology have made it much more cost-efficient to produce new paper from trees.

d) Most paper is made from the scraps and sawdust left after processing new trees for lumber, rather than directly from the trees themselves.

e) When the price of planting new saplings to replace cut trees becomes more expensive, forests reserves not previously worth cutting become cost-effective to cut

Please explain your answer

though A and C are very close, I will go with A

reason- Innovation in production technology is common for both reclyled paper and new paper from trees. The only difference could be that the cost of unprocessed tree, which is the raw material for producing paper, has dramatically reduced.

Amar

Amar,

At my first go, I was going for 'A', for similar reason as yours.. Then I realised that the fact about 'Innovation in production technology for new paper' is not in the original premise but in one of the possible explanations (answer choice).

oh ya, you are absolutely correct, you hit the nail in right place...thnx buddy